I ran across this little article:http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF1

It seems to define "anarchism" as "freedom from oppression" - which is not what it literally means. It also seems to be talking about "property" in terms of land area for the most part. Another commenter on scuttlebutt (https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/) opined that any property that required state violence to protect was illegitimate.

Anarchy, as described here, is a minimalist Krytocracy where judges are the only real semblance of government.

That is pretty much Israel before the kings, in the book of Judges no less. A Law and judges, but no ruler (except God, but He employed no human proxy after Moses). Their reasoning for abandoning that system is ominously like today: "We want a king to be like other nations!"

Anarchy, as described here, is a minimalist Krytocracy where judges are the only real semblance of government.

That is pretty much Israel before the kings, in the book of Judges no less. A Law and judges, but no ruler (except God, but He employed no human proxy after Moses). Their reasoning for abandoning that system is ominously like today: "We want a king to be like other nations!"

Quite correct. I find it most interesting the Anarchists and the Right Wing types I follow both pursue the same basic government type. They differ on some details, but they want the same format.